Why carbon taxes won't work

This is a well-reasoned argument for why carbon taxes aren't a feasible option for decreasing carbon emissions, despite seemingly widespread consensus among economists that taxes are better than a cap-and-trade system. Among its points:

1) The politics of implementing a carbon tax will require huge, economy-distorting compromises that will limit its effectiveness;

2) We have no clue what the optimal price is;

3) A carbon tax designed for the expected case can safely be avoided for decades, while a carbon tax high enough to ameliorate a low-odds disaster scenario would be insanely expensive. I had to read this one a few extra times to understand it, but I think the argument is that it is cheaper and more effective to invest in alternative technologies for the next 40 years than to implement a gradual tax over that time that probably wouldn't do much and would cost a lot. The problem, of course, is that this doesn't account for the costs of transition at that point. Also, if you believe that the private sector is best place for these new technologies to be developed, then you have to give them an incentive to develop them, for example by making it more expensive to stick with the status quo.

I suppose you could also just give the money directly to the private sector to do the research. Maybe by taking away direct and indirect subsidies for emissions-producing practices? (Though that, again, raises prices for consumers.) Regardless, it's a thought-provoking way to think about how the current proposals for tackling global warming aren't necessarily compatible with political or economic reality.

Side thought: I wonder if our broken patent system is ready to deal with the prospect of alternative energy technologies... will the AET industry fall more on the side of biotech (pushing for stronger patent protections) or Silicon Valley tech (pushing for weaker patent protections)?

Oh, snap!

You have to love the Clinton campaign for managing to pull Obama's people down to their level, high-minded language about "a different kind of politics" nonwithstanding. In response to the absurd plagiarism charges that the Clinton campaign aired Monday in a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign manager David Axelrod hilariously insulted Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson:

Without naming him, Axelrod then took a shot at Wolfson: "Our buddy in the ugly sweater will show up on your show and try to make this and other things an issue. Anything they can grab on to now."

Though really, he's not wrong.

The Republican Nader

No, I don't specifically have one in mind, but doesn't it seem like the time is ripe for one to appear? This TNR article cataloguing the many conservative heresies of John McCain over the years should remind us of why most Republicans hate him so much. Add that to statements by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter about supporting the Democrat if McCain gets the nomination, not to mention the fact that Huckabee (Huckabee!!) is managing to still win primaries, and you have to wonder whether there aren't some conservative wingnuts out there contemplating a spoiler third-party run. It wouldn't be hard to argue to disgruntled conservatives that there is no difference between McCain and the Democrats, and that electing either one will have the effect of destroying core Republican values and killing the party.

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Pat Buchanan?

P.S. Here is a great satirical version of the Obama "Yes We Can" video featuring McCain.

Obama and transcending race--where are the Asians and Hispanics?

As an Obama supporter, I am of course excited by his strong showing tonight and optimistic that his message is resonating more widely than I thought possible. As a California voter from San Jose, I was sort of shocked at a stat that I saw on CNN that showed that he had lost to Clinton by something like 30 points among Hispanics, and really shocked at the stat that he had lost to her by over 50 points to Asian-Americans. Of course we'd been hearing about how he was going to lose the Hispanic vote for ages, but why no word about Asians? They are truly the lost demographic, despite recent increases in their numbers and political clout.

Watching his speech from Chicago tonight, this issue really struck me--Obama speaks about transcending race, but only makes reference to black-white relations: "This isn't about black children, this isn't about white children, it's about all children" etc. This is not a message that resonates with Hispanic and Asian voters, especially politically-organized Hispanic and Asian voters who feel entitled to be part of a larger dialogue about race in America. For these groups, issues like immigration and affirmative action are much more complex than the black-white dichotomy that the Obama campaign has managed to "transcend." (See, for example, the tension between Hispanics and blacks on illegal immigration and wage effects, or the fact that most Asian-American political organizations have come out strongly against affirmative action because Asians are disproportionately hurt by it.) If Obama is truly going to be the post-racial president, he must recognize that and reach out to these groups, rather than snubbing them. The Clintons get it, and are able to capitalize on (irresponsible speculation alert) both groups' natural cultural conservatism and suspicion of "revolutionary" talk.

Of course, the Obama campaign may have made the calculation that none of this matters (at least now on) because California is reliably blue and will swing for whoever the Democratic nominee is regardless. But I'm not so sure this truism holds where the Republican nominee is McCain--the face of comprehensive immigration reform and a conservative that liberals can get behind. If the 2008 election is going to be a fight for independents and moderates, then Asians and Hispanics are groups that Obama absolutely needs to win; and they are groups he probably shouldn't continue taking for granted.

Playing dirty

Ugh. I had a sneaking suspicion that I wouldn't get to enjoy for long my schadenfreude at how badly the media got bludgeoned after New Hampshire because, Clintons being Clintons, they would turn a hard-earned victory into an opportunity to showcase the worst fault lines in the Democratic party. From making inexplicably stupid remarks about MLK and the civil rights movement (yes, as a practical matter both men were necessary but not sufficient in bringing formal equality to African-Americans, but why on earth diminish MLK in order to make a cheap point?) to using proxies at every turn to bring up the drug use issue to making it clear that they plan to exploit tensions between the Hispanic and African-American communities, the Clinton campaign appears to be channeling the spirit of Karl Rove. "Change" at all costs, eh?

If my feelings on this are any kind of weathervane, then I suspect that these tactics will repel the women voters who turned New Hampshire around for her. Or at least they should. Obama has played a remarkably clean game so far, and it redounds a great deal to his credit that he has stayed more or less above the fray and seems committed to not engaging in destructive racial politics in order to beat her back. One good thing--if he survives and wins the nomination, no one can say he isn't ready to face the Republicans.

Last word on Hillary

Rebecca Traister has an awesome op-ed in Salon on how infuriated women flipped the bird at the media (in particular, the creepily obsessed, clearly-not-getting-any Chris Matthews) and gave New Hampshire to Hillary. I've had a surprisingly impossible time convincing (liberal) men that it was perfectly reasonable for women to feel the way they did about the media's coverage of Hillary, but I suppose "girls are idiots" is a comfortable enough meme. (Seriously, the theme of the male-pundit-dominated commentary appears to be, "Everyone in New Hampshire was on their period!")

Anyway, as long as the media ignores the fact that the way Clinton is portrayed elicits a powerful--and rational!!--reaction in the women who are watching, they're going to keep being shocked and dismayed each time she beats expectations. Traister makes this point with the best line in the piece (which is titled "The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong"):

But here's a message from the women of New Hampshire, and me, to Hillary Clinton's exuberant media antagonists: You have no power here. Now be gone, before somebody drops a house on you!

Paradoxes in Political Science

Kevin Drum wonders at the perplexing results of the exit polls from New Hampshire that show that Democrats who want quick withdrawal from in Iraq supported Hillary by substantial margins, while Democrats who want a more gradual withdrawal or to keep troops in Iraq voted for Obama by substantial margins. The same trend occurred on the Republican side--voters who disapproved for the war supported McCain, and voters who approved supported Romney. He asks, "huh?"

I think this might be explained by a phenomenon in political science called "Nixon-in-China" syndrome: the public trusts the leader to take action that he is least ideologically predisposed to. It took Nixon to go to to China because the right could trust him not to betray American interests; similarly, it takes left-leaning governments to undertake reforms in areas like labor and welfare because it is easier for them to sell such programs to liberal interest groups (since left-leaning governments ostensibly have those groups' interests as a priority). That's why it also took uber-hawk Ariel Sharon to withdraw from Gaza, and why it will probably take someone who opposed the war to make the decision to tough it out if that's what the situation calls for; and vice versa.